From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Mishin Subject: Re: Network virtualization/isolation Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 18:19:00 +0300 Message-ID: <200612041819.01017.dim@openvz.org> References: <453F8800.9070603@fr.ibm.com> <1165155198.3517.86.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, Daniel Lezcano , devel@openvz.org, Linux Containers , Stephen Hemminger , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Cedric Goater Return-path: Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:48968 "EHLO relay.sw.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936997AbWLDPUE (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:20:04 -0500 To: "Eric W. Biederman" In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sunday 03 December 2006 19:00, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Ok. Just a quick summary of where I see the discussion. > > We all agree that L2 isolation is needed at some point. As we all agreed on this, may be it is time to send patches one-by-one? For the beggining, I propose to resend Cedric's empty namespace patch as base for others - it is really empty, but necessary in order to move further. After this patch and the following net namespace unshare patch will be accepted, I could send network devices virtualization patches for review and discussion. What do you think? > > The approaches discussed for L2 and L3 are sufficiently orthogonal > that we can implement then in either order. You would need to > unshare L3 to unshare L2, but if we think of them as two separate > namespaces we are likely to be in better shape. > > The L3 discussion still has the problem that there has not been > agreement on all of the semantics yet. > > More comments after I get some sleep. > > Eric > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Thanks, Dmitry.